Re: commit access policies

[Sergio Lopez]

El dom, 13-11-2005 a las 06:55 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG escribió:
> "Alfred M\. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > I might not understand what Tier Two is for, but I'm not suggesting a
> > wiki-style way of development (where anyone can get tier two access).
> > I'm suggesting a middle ground, where a tier two doesn't need to ask a
> > tier one to fix a bug, a compilation error or maybe add a new simple
> > feature without sending a small note to bug-hurd with the patch and a
> > description of what the thing does.  But _if_ a tier one says that the
> > patch is wrong, then the tier two should fix it accordingly.  Basiclly
> > giving tier twos a bit more slack, and some of the responsibility.
> > And a tier one just checks that things are ok.  New tier twos would
> > still have to ask about anything before committing.
> 
> I think the problem is specifically in a case like this one, where
> people who are able to verify patches are not overflowing with free
> time.  We cannot run the risk of destabilizing patches building up
> because nobody had the time to check things that were already checked
> in.
> 

This discussion is being silly. There is no _active_ maintainer that
wants to invest his time working in GNU Mach (and this includes
reviewing patches, and even more important, discussing design issues).
That's ok, we can't force people to work in what they don't want to
work. 

So there's only one feasible solution; open a new branch for GNU Mach
and GNU Hurd, and allow the people _who still want to work on Mach/Hurd_
do their own way.

Thanks.
-- 
Sergio Lopez
koro@sinrega.org